Slashdot Mirror
'Detergent' Hydroxl Molecules May Affect Methane Levels In The Atmosphere (caltech.edu)
An anonymous reader quotes Caltech's announcement about the results of a study funded by NASA and the Department of Energy:
During the early 2000s, environmental scientists studying methane emissions noticed something unexpected: the global concentrations of atmospheric methane -- which had increased for decades, driven by methane emissions from fossil fuels and agriculture -- inexplicably leveled off. The methane levels remained stable for a few years, then started rising again in 2007... New modeling by researchers at Caltech and Harvard University suggests that methane emissions might not have increased dramatically in 2007 after all. Instead, the most likely explanation has less to do with methane emissions and more to do with changes in the availability of the hydroxyl radical, which breaks down methane in the atmosphere... If global levels of hydroxyl decrease, global methane concentrations will increase -- even if methane emissions remain constant, the researchers say...
Tracking decadal trends in both methane and hydroxyl, Christian Frankenberg and his colleagues noted that fluctuations in hydroxyl concentrations correlated strongly with fluctuations in methane... "Think of the atmosphere like a kitchen sink with the faucet running," Frankenberg explains. "When the water level inside the sink rises, that can mean that you've opened up the faucet more. Or it can mean that the drain is blocking up. You have to look at both."
So what's changing the level of hydroxl in the atmosphere? The researchers say they have no idea.
Tracking decadal trends in both methane and hydroxyl, Christian Frankenberg and his colleagues noted that fluctuations in hydroxyl concentrations correlated strongly with fluctuations in methane... "Think of the atmosphere like a kitchen sink with the faucet running," Frankenberg explains. "When the water level inside the sink rises, that can mean that you've opened up the faucet more. Or it can mean that the drain is blocking up. You have to look at both."
So what's changing the level of hydroxl in the atmosphere? The researchers say they have no idea.
Perhaps they're being eaten by an Aloxotyl?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Armchair comment, but you know what happened shortly after 2007? The housing crisis.
What probably really happened is that a bunch of industries curbed their production for a few years before coming back up to full power.
Some recent research points to the air-water interface in clouds as an unexpected Hydroxyl source: https://www.chemistryworld.com...
Why are we wasting tax dollars on these fake news "studies"? These groups are not profitable and only seek to increase regulations that harm businesses and our national economy.
It just makes good business sense to defund these, Mr. President! #MAGA
Ignorant.fuck.
'So what's changing the level of hydroxl in the atmosphere? The researchers say they have no idea.'
I'm sure the AGW Denialists will continue to pull arbitrary, self-serving arguments, with no evidence, out of their arses.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Says the guy who doesn't even know how climate models work.
Says the guy who doesn't know how climate models work.
As well you warmists will be right there with same, spewing hatred of technology and pushing for more and bigger government and socialist programs.
You're welcome to accept AGW, but propose a different policy. Denying basic science just because you don't like the results is dishonest.
don't care for the L
Until a Red Team is created to actual debate the "issue," neither side is going to yield.
my theory is catalytic converters
Oh good. Climate models that are unphysical, unskilled at prediction and understood by no one are now "basic" science. I dread to ask what "advanced" science looks like.
See that "Preview" button?
Except that this proves, ONCE AGAIN, that this is NOT basic science. It's very complicated! And worse, these are very complicated predictive models, which are almost never right. Get one variable slightly wrong and the butterfly effect takes hold and you come up with an answer that is completely wrong. If we don't know what is, or even what CAN effect hydroxyl radical concentration in the atmosphere, how many other things do we not know?
Ban soap.
Sources of volatile hydroxils include fermentation and plant respiration. The authors did not say "they have no idea", they said they do yet have a mechanistic explanation. They clearly have some ideas and those ideas are related to the differences between the tropics and the rest of the planet and they are all calling for more studies on specifically this.
"However, the authors do not yet have a mechanistic explanation for the last decade's global changes in hydroxyl concentrations. Future studies are needed to investigate this further, Frankenberg says. The researchers also would like to see the trends they detected verified with a more detailed study of both methane sources and sinks."
No no, you got it all wrong, this was the last flaw!
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Finally some scientists that have the guts to say that they don't know why something is happening! Rejoice!
What a stupid thing to say. Perhaps you would like to cite an example of any scientist who claims that they know everything. You won't be able to, because you just lied.
Think about it, if you can. If scientists went around saying that they knew it all then they would put themselves out of business because there would be no need to do any more research. Scientific papers usually provide margins of error to show the parts where they still don't know all the factors. They also will conclude with where they still think that more research is needed, either because there questions that their research could not answer (or was out of the scope of the paper) or there were new questions raised by the results. That is hardly the thing that would need to be said if the scientists thought that they had all the answers.
You are misrepresenting what was said. The science was settled that an increase in greenhouse gas emissions by humans leads to a warming of the atmosphere. Nobody ever said that all climate research had been finished and that every aspect of global warming was known.
So yes, the science that was being discussed at the time remains settled because this new research does not disprove AGW. It is merely quibbling about the rates of change.
You needn't believe in anthropomorphic global warming. However, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is raising the PH of the oceans. You do recall the oceans, yes? Base of the food chain?
BTW, check in with the fishermen along the East Coast of the U.S. Their fish have been moving north as their water has gotten warmer. Damn those fish, they are more intellligent than you.
The spelling mistake in the headline may have had readers scratching their heads wondering what "hydroxl" is and trying to look it up on Wikipedia. (It isn't there.) The correct spelling is "hydroxyl" and the molecule is called the "hydroxyl radical". The Wikipedia article is actually very good and informative.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Do you ever read the stuff you write?
Go back to high school and read a book. They wont be "unphysical, unskilled at prediction and understood by no one" anymore.
We'll be back to river water in no time.
Feel free to live free from science - in a cave and die at 23 from some easily preventable disease.
I seriously doubt there are any climatologists (or scientists from other fields) who claim they know everything about how climate works. There are many who know a great deal about specific parts. For the most part science is an iterative affair of improving accuracy by improving precision in models.
Take a kitchen sink faucet, turn it on for 30 seconds. Measure the water. There's a fair amount one can say about flow rate and volume from that but there's even more one can't. To make statements about turbulent flow or increasingly complex fluid dynamics you need an iterative process of improved models, improved testing apparatus. And yet your initial statements about flow rate and volume of water are still just as valid. The subsequent tests don't invalidate the initial ones, they improve upon them.
I guess it's possible if you asserted no water flowed out of the faucet somebody might accuse you of being a racist homophic(sic) faggot what hates babies but it's hard to see why and probably wouldn't happen.
The earth is going to eliminate this invasive species (homo sapiens sapiens) which is attempting to destroy it. Good self-regulation.
A few tens of million years of a carboniferous period should return things to equilibrium... then it can start over with amphibians and the rest... maybe it will work out better next time.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Some of the science is settled, certainly. Methane is a greenhouse gas; nobody expects that to change. Atmospheric methane decays primarily through a long, well-documented chain of reactions starting with oxidation by the hydroxyl radical; the carbon in the CH4 eventually ends up in a CO2 molecule. This is nothing new, and nobody expects it to change.
The precise dynamics by which CH4 interacts with hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere is far from settled science, and nobody should be particularly surprised that there are things about the process we don't know. Not knowing some things about a process doesn't mean we can't know other things about that process.
But some people obviously do believe it means that. They do not distinguish between not knowing everything and knowing nothing. Implicitly requiring scientists to know everything before you consider science credible makes everything a matter of opinion, and all opinions more or less equally valid, at least as far is evidence is concerned. And it's easy to see the attraction: if everything is a matter of opinion you can believe whatever you find comforting. Why not believe Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs? After all scientists don't know everything, which means science is never "settled".
But of course settling questions with evidence is what science is all about. True, there is no science so settled it cannot be attacked; but there *is* science sufficiently settled that claims to the contrary require extraordinary evidence.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
... and I feel fiiiiiinnnnneeee!
The hydroxyl radical program was classified because the political stance was carbon taxes to solve the issue. Reality vs. politics.
Politics: many, blood sucking insects.
Or is it lowering the pH?
Quibbling? I think that is the most important part. Or do you think 0.1C over 100 years is the same as 10C over 100 years?
Or they mod you down for 'flamebait'... Well, if slashdot allows this I don't give a crap anymore about there 'karma' points.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Quibbling? I think that is the most important part. Or do you think 0.1C over 100 years is the same as 10C over 100 years?
Whenever there is some change that has to be made to the predictions it is never as large as you suggested. I defy you to name a single time that some error or new mechanism in climate science that has ever made such a difference to the projected outcomes.
If scientists found that the warming levels would be limited to 0.1C over 100 years then it would be major news and would cause joyous celebrations everywhere. Hell, if this kept us below the 2C target of the Paris agreement then it would be plastered all over the news sites. But this isn't that news. Nobody has even suggested in any quietly optimistic way that this is that news. For a 0.1C increase to be the case, the temperature graph would have to suddenly turn to be almost completely flat. Even if CO2 and methane levels stayed constant at current levels, the temperature rise would be more than that.
Also, no model shows a prediction anywhere near 10C, so your example was of a range that has nothing to do with the temperature rise over the next 100 years. Your estimates are widely inaccurate, as is your belief that this is anything more than a quibble.